Protecting the Homeland

HSA waives environmental and social laws to keep the Mexicans out 5

Attentive readers of Grist's news feed will know that yesterday Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff waived a few laws in order to get going on the 700-mile border fence between the U.S. and Mexico. A judge ruled a few weeks ago that Chertoff was steamrolling the environmental review process and should halt construction immediately, but since one of those lovely post-9/11 laws gave Chertoff the power to waive whatever the f*ck laws he wants, that didn't have much effect.

Chertoff says that delaying construction of this particular 7-mile bit of the fence -- which would pass through the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, a biologically diverse watershed that's home to some 250 kinds of migratory bird -- would present "unacceptable risks to our nation's security."

"I have to say to myself," said Chertoff, "Yes, I don't want to disturb the habitat of a lizard, but am I prepared to pay human lives to do that?"

Why, 100 people have probably been killed by Mexican farmworker terrorists while we're having this silly conversation!!!

So what laws did Chertoff said aside in order to protect us from the Mexican Scourge? NRDC offers this list:

  • Clean Water Act
  • Clean Air Act
  • Safe Drinking Water Act
  • Solid Waste Disposal Act
  • Superfund
  • National Environmental Protection Act
  • National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
  • Migratory Bird Treaty Act
  • National Historic Preservation Act
  • Archeological Resources Protection Act
  • Historic Preservation Act
  • Antiquities Act
  • Noise Control Act
  • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
  • Federal Land Policy and Management Act
  • Farmland Protection Act

Those laws, you see, are just there to protect lizard habitats. The fence is there to protect The Homeland!

I feel safer already.

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. jadedthea Posted 12:28 pm
    23 Oct 2007

    false tradeoffsWow, he has time to run a war and destroy unique ripiarian habitat in an otherwise arid region - quite the multitasker. Jaguars are also supported by that habitat -- but I guess they are more charismatic than lizards and thus a bad soundbite to toss about while putting forth jingoistic arguments for trumping the rule of law.

    ~summer~

    Permalink

  2. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 3:23 pm
    23 Oct 2007

    There is going to be a run on 11 foot tall laddersthe day that 10 foot wall gets finished.

    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

    Permalink

  3. caniscandida Posted 4:01 pm
    23 Oct 2007

    charisma-ramaYou want charisma?  Sure, jaguars are swell, but there is hardly a creature in the world as beautiful, elegant and cute all at once as the ocelot.  And the little bit that is left of its historic range in South Texas is directly threatened by the border fence.  See the part on the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in this report from Defenders of Wildlife:
    http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/habitat_cons ...

    Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

    Permalink

  4. meander Posted 1:01 am
    24 Oct 2007

    The fence and human livesOne of the purposes of the fence is to make the journey harder for migrants by pushing them deeper into the desert.  The theory is that fewer will try.  The reality will be that more will die.  
    A fence does nothing to fix the tremendous economic problems in Mexico.  It does nothing to stop the big meat packers from hiring undocumented immigrants. It's all a big show to make the xenophobic wing of the GOP happy, and also a chance to waive some laws.
    How long before we hear that drilling in ANWR is a matter of national security, and therefore the national wildlife refuge act can be waived?

    ---

    meander

    Permalink

  5. Storm Dragon Posted 8:39 am
    31 Oct 2007

    Where do we go from here?What Michael Chertoff did was disgusting-I think we all agree on that.  The question is, what should we do to counter this unconscionable move?  Would it be worthwhile to sue the Department of Homeland Security, on the grounds that, by failing to safeguard our wild places and wildlife, the Department is shortchanging the American people?  Or is nonviolent direct action the best option left?  What other possibilities might there be?

    Let the jaguars return!

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement